The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection PART 1

What historical evidence is there for the resurrection of
Jesus? I think there is an abundance of historical evidence for the
resurrection of Jesus. First off, let me briefly explain the approach I’m going
to take so that the viewers will understand what I’m doing. I’m going to be
using what’s called a Minimal Facts approach. The Minimal Facts are only using
data that have a lot of evidence for them, and nearly universally accepted by
scholars who study the subject, even skeptical non-Christian scholars.

Secondly, while I will be appealing to some of the New
Testament documents in my argument for the resurrection, I’m not quoting from
The Bible to prove The Bible. I want to make that absolutely clear. I am not
quoting from The Bible to prove The Bible. Instead, I’m merely treating the New
Testament documents are merely a set of ancient documents that claim to be able
to tell us things about Jesus. I will think appeal various “Tests Of
Authenticity” to the text. These historical “Tests” are what historians use
when examining secular, non-biblical documents. Like the principle of multiple
attestation, the principle of embarrassment, the principle of enemy
attestation, the principle of dissimilarity etc. etc. In fact, skeptical non-Christians scholars use
these principles when examining the New Testament documents and have come to
the same conclusions I’m about to argue for. So before you say that I'm
appealing to The Bible to prove The Bible, let me just say that I am not. I’m
not arguing that “It’s in The Bible so it must be true!” No, no.I am not appealing to the New Testament
Gospels and epistles as a divinely inspired scripture. Rather, I'm taking the
documents of the New Testament and are applying the same historical principles
of testing that historians use in examining other, non-biblical documents. It
should be said though I will look at extra biblical evidence in addition to the
New Testament documents.

Now, onto the evidence. What are the minimal facts that need
to be explained?

Number 1: Jesus Died By Crucifixion.

Number 2: His Tomb Was Found Empty The Following Sunday
Morning

Number 3 : His 12 Disciples believed they saw Him alive
after Jesus’ Death

Number 4: The Church Persecutor Paul Converted Based On
What He Believed Was An Appearance Of The Risen Jesus.

Number 5: The Skeptic James Converted Based On What He
Believed Was An Appearance Of The Risen Jesus.

--

First, How Do We Know
Jesus Died By Crucifixion?

We know this fact is true because it is mentioned in the
writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Mara Bar Sarapion, Lucian Of Samosata’s
writings, Paul’s epistles, and the 4 gospels. Because it’s mentioned in all of
these sources which don’t rely upon one another. It is therefore multiply
attested. Josephus tells us in his “Antiquities Of The Jews” that Jesus died by
crucifixion at the hands of Pontius Pilate because the Sanhedrin pestered him
to do so. Tacitus writes “Christus…was put to death by Pontius Pilate;
procurator of Judea during the reign of
Tiberius”. Mara Bar Sarapian, writing to his son from prison states “What
did the Jews gain from murdering their wise king? It was after that that their
kingdom was abolished.” Lucian was a second century Greek satirist. In one
of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows: “The Christians .
. . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their
novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . .”

So Jesus’ death by crucifixion is multiply attested in a
minimum of 7 sources. 4 of them secular in nature. Why is this important?
Because when historians are examining historical documents and are trying to
figure out whether what they say is true, one of the principles they employ is
called the principle of multiple attestation. What that means is that the more
independent sources you find an event mentioned in, the more and more likely it
is to be historical. So if you find an event mentioned in two independent
sources, it’s likely to be historical. If you find it in 3 independent
documents. It’s very likely to be historical. If it’s found in 4 independent
sources, it’s very, very, very likely to be historical. The logic behind this
is that the more sources an event is mentioned in, the less and less likely it
becomes that ALL of these people independently fabricated the same
fiction. With the crucifixion of Jesus, we have His death mentioned in 7
independent sources. What are the odds that all of these people would write the
same fiction and treat is as history.

So, Jesus’ death by crucifixion is a historical fact. In
fact, John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar said “That Jesus diedby crucifixion is as historical as anything
can be.”

How Do We Know Jesus’ Tomb
Was Empty?

1: THE JERUSALEM
FACTOR

If the religious leaders who had Jesus killed, and the
Romans, or anybody really wanted to stomp out the Christian movement, all they
would have had to do was go town to Jesus’ tomb, pluck the body out of the tomb
and parade it down the streets for all to see. Everyone who gazed upon the body
of Jesus as they were parading it down the street would have been persuaded
that Christianity was false. If they did that, Christianity would have
died out before it even got off the ground. In other words, we would not be
here having this debate.

However, Christianity is still alive today. It’s still a
dominate religion in the United States.
Therefore, I conclude that the enemies of Christitanity (such as the Pharisees,
The Romans, etc.) did not take Jesus’ body out of the tomb and show it
to everyone. Why? Very likely because Jesus’ body wasn’t even there to be
taken out.

If Jesus’ body were still in the tomb, they definitely would
have paraded Jesus’ body down the street to disprove the resurrection. But even
if they didn’t, anyone even the slightest bit skeptical of the disciples’
claims could have gone down to the tomb, rolled back the stone with the help of
a few other buddies…in order to see whether Jesus’ body was still there. And
those who know me know how I hate blind faith. If I were in Jerusalem
in the first century, and a bunch of guys came to me and told me that a guy had
risen from the dead, that’s the first thing I would have done.

2: WOMEN AS WITNESSES

Another piece of evidence for the empty tomb is that all
four gospel accounts feature women who discovered the tomb empty. In
patriarchal Jewish society the testimony of women was considered as practically
worthless! In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren’t even
permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. Now in light of this
fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus’
empty tomb. If the writers felt free to play loose with the facts, they would
certainly have made male disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb.
The fact that it is women, rather than men, who are the discoverers of the
empty tomb is best explained by the fact that, like or not, they WERE the chief
witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, and the Gospel writers faithfully
recorded what was, for them, a rather awkward and embarrassing fact.

Thus, we have certainty that the tomb of Jesus was empty by
the principle of embarrassment. The principle of embarrassment says that if
something is mentioned in history that is either embarrassing to the author or
has potential for hurting the case they’re trying to make, we have more
certainty that it’s historical than we would have without it. The logic behind
this comes from the fact that people don’t usually make up embarrassing details
about themselves, and usually don’t admit them even if they’re true! People
also don’t make up details about a lie that appear implausible if they’re trying
to make that lie seem believable. Due to the fact that women were regarded as
worthless witnesses, the disciples would likely make themselves seem less
credible by adding this tidbit about the women if they were just making up the
resurrection story. That would be to put words in the mouths of witnesses who
would not likely be believed.

3: THE ENEMIES OF CHRISTIANITY TRIED TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE
EMPTY TOMB

The third piece of evidence for empty tomb is that even the
enemies of Christianity admitted it, albeit implicitly. What was the earliest
Jewish polemic against the resurrection? That “these men are full of new wine”?
That “Jesus’ body still lay in the tomb”? No. They said that “the disciples
came and stole away his body”. Now think about that for a moment. “The
disciples came and stole away his body”. This is mentioned near the end of
Matthews Gospel (chapter 28) and is an implicit admission that the tomb of
Jesus was empty. This is powerful evidence due to a historian’s principle known
as The Principle Of Enemy Attestation.

Now, you might be wondering why we
should view this a good evidence for the empty tomb, since it’s comes from
Matthew’s gospel and not directly from the Jewish leadership themselves.
It’s not like it’s coming out of a book written by Caiaphas where he writes
“The tomb was empty because the disciples took his body” or anything. Couldn’t
Matthew have made this up simply to make the empty tomb story seem more
credible? Well, no. I don’t think so. Why is that?

First, Matthew reports that the
Jewish leadership were spreading around this story “TO THIS DAY”. “To this
day”. (Matthew 28:15). Now what does “to this day” mean? Matthew means that the
Jews were spreading the Stolen Body Theory around the community even during the
very time period that Matthew was writing his gospel! If the Jewish leadership
were not spreading this story around, Matthew would open himself up to ridicule
and discredit. People could easily point out Matthew as being a liar in this
particular point of his story. Especially since it involves the Jewish
Leadership, if they weren’t spreading a Stolen Body Theory around, they
could point Matthew out as being a liar. It’s unlikely Matthew would open
himself up to such easy falsifiability. Therefore, it’s likely that they really
were spreading this story around.

Moreover, what motive would Matthew
have to make up this story anyway? Matthew is essentially bringing up an
objection to the resurrection in his text. If nobody was claiming that they
stole the body, why would Matthew say that they were? This would be answering
an accusation that nobody made. If you one day discovered that your car was
missing from your front yard, and you said outloud “Oh no! My car is gone! What
happened to it!?” And your friend answered by saying “I don’t know what
happened to your car. But it’s not like I stole it or anything!” That, in
itself, would make your friend look very suspicious…since he’d be answering an
accusation nobody made of him. You’d look at him funny and say “Uhh…I never said
you stole my car. Wait, is there something you’re not telling me?” Likewise,
for Matthew to try to say “The body of Jesus is gone! But it’s not like we
stole it or anything!” would make himself look suspicious since he’d be
answering an accusation nobody brought up. So it makes more sense to think they
really were saying this.

Finally, the most powerful evidence
for this is that it’s multiply attested. For not only does Matthew say that the
Jews were saying this, but Justin Martyr in the second century says that the
Jews were saying this in his “Dialogue With Trypho”, and Tertullian says the
Jews were saying this in the third century. Therefore, it’s multiply attested.
Evidentally, this was the earliest response to the proclamation “He Is Risen”
and it persisted throughout the second and third centuries.

How Do We Know The Disciples Saw
Jesus Alive After His Death?

Now, onto the most important evidence for the resurrection.
It’s the most important because an empty tomb by itself proves little. The most
powerful evidence for the resurrection is the postmortem appearances of Jesus.

Our best evidence comes from an early creed mentioned in 1
Corinthians 15:3-8, recited by the Apostle Paul. Paul writes “For what I
received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our
sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the
third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then
to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the
brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though
some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

Most scholars (even the non-Christian ones) date this creed
to within 5 years of Jesus’ death. But, how do we know it’s a creed? We know
it’s a creed for at least 4 reasons.

1: Paul Alerts Us That He’s Not Writing In His Own Hand.
Paul alerts us that he’s not writing in his own hand here. He writes “For
what I received I passed on to you as of first importance”
Paul says essentially “I received this information from someone else, now I’m
going to pass it onto you.” So he’s outright telling us that the information
he’s about to cite is information that he himself received and is about to pass
on to his readers. Moreover, “received” and “passed on” was typical technical
rabbinic language. Whenever a rabbi was passing on this tradition, he would use
these terms.

2: The Language In verses 3-7 are Non-Pauline.
According to most scholars, the language Paul uses here in this portion of the
text is not characteristic of Paul. The grammatical style and word usage is
unique here.

3: Paralellism Is Apparent In The Text. Paralellism
is a type of writing that was found in ancient Greek poetry and other oral
traditions. The style goes that the first line would be very long, followed by
a short line. The third sentence would be very long (just like the first one),
and then the next verse would be very short. We see this in 1 Corinthians 15.

“Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,” (long)

“and that He was buried” (short)

“and that He was raised on the third day in accordance
with the scriptures” (long)

“and that He appeared…” (short)

4: Repeated use of the phrase “and that”.

So clearly, this is an ancient creed used by the early
church. It predates Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church (which most
scholars date to about A.D 55). Now the question is, how much earlier? Well, Paul
says “For what I received, I DELIVERED to you…” He says “I delivered
to you”. He’s using the past tense. In other words, Paul is saying that the
information he’s about to give the Corinthians is information he’s already
given them. So Paul recited this creed to them during his first visit. But I
think we can date it even earlier. In fact, to within 5 years of Jesus’ death.
How so? Because in Galatians 1, Paul is describing his conversion from
skepticism. He describes how he persecuted the church (verses 13-14) that God
revealed his son to him (verses 15-16), and then he went away into Arabia
and then went to Damascus (verse
17). Paul then writes “Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem
to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days.I saw none of
the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.” A good many
non-Christian scholars think that this is probably when Paul received this
creed. Three years after his conversion.

Notice then, that the resurrection claims can be traced to
the eyewitnesses themselves. Paul conversed with Peter and James who in turned
gave them this creed that included themselves as the risen Jesus. Moreover,
this creed is so early that the resurrection cannot be written off as a
mere legend. This is absolutely within the lifetimes of all of the eyewitnesses
who could have come forward if this creed included false information about them.
Peter, or James, or any of the 12 disciples, could have called Paul out as a
liar if they didn’t think they saw Jesus. But they probably wouldn’t if they’re
the ones who gave Paul the creed to begin with (as the evidence seems to
suggest).

These people must have seen Jesus. Why? Because if
the people who originated this creed were simply making up these appearances,
then the church to whom Paul is writing to could go question these witnesses,
and if they really hadn’t seen Jesus, then Paul would have been seen as a liar.
In fact, they argue that this is precisely why he says that "Many of
whom are still alive, but some have fallen asleep". It’s almost as if
Paul is challenging his readers to go to these people he just listed…in order
to interview them. He’s like “Don’t believe me? Go check it out for
yourselves!”

The appearances to the disciples is also multiply attested.
Mentioned not only in this early creedal tradition, but also mentioned in all 4
gospels.

Even atheist scholar Gerd Ludemann
has said “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the
disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which he appeared to them as
the risen Christ” -- For a historian, and skeptic, no less, to say that
something is historically certain speaks volumes about the evidence for that
aspect of history. “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had
resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that
gave rise to the experiences I do not know.” (atheist E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, pg
280)

“That the experiences did occur, even if they are
explained in purely natural terms, is a fact upon which both believer and
unbeliever can agree.” (atheist Reginald H. Fuller, Foundations of New
Testament Christology, 142)

The Conversion Of The
Church Persecutor Paul

Probably one of the more profound of the appearances is that
of Paul. We have excellent historical evidence that Paul was a persecutor of
the early Christian church, but became a Christian evangelist who suffered
greatly and on an ongoing basis because of his Christian faith, and ended up
being martyred for the sake of the gospel.

How do we know Paul was a persecutor? We know this based on
two of the historians principles; the principle of embarrassment, and the
principle of multiple attestation.

First off, Paul mentions in his letter to the Corinthian
church, his letter to the Galatian church, and his letter to the Philippian
church, that he was a persecutor of the Christian church. From Paul’s own pen
he tells us that he killed some Christians and had others imprisoned. We know
Paul is telling the truth based on the principle of embarrassment. If you’re
writing a letter to someone, are you just going to conjure up lies about how
you killed innocent people? I don’t think so. Even if you did kill innocent
people, you most likely wouldn’t own up to it. But you especially
wouldn’t mention it if it were not true. There’s just no way that Paul would
say something so shameful and disturbing about himself if it were not true. No
one makes up the fact that they killed innocent people. In fact, people often
times don’t admit that even if it’s true. But they especially don’t
mention it if it’s not true. Based on the principle of embarrassment,
I’m highly inclined to believe that Paul was telling the truth when he said
that he was a persecutor of the church.

We also know he persecuted the church based on the principle
of multiple attestation. Not only does Paul say he was an enemy of Christians,
but Luke mentions it as well in the book of Acts. Paul and Luke are independent
sources of one another, and therefore, there is multiple attestation of it.

So we’ve established using the historian’s craft that Paul
was a persecutor of the church. We know also that Paul became a Christian
evangelist and suffered horribly for the gospel, and eventually was killed for
it. Paul himself lists some of his sufferings for the sake of the gospels, but
Luke records some of Paul’s sufferings as well in the book of Acts. Again, Paul
and Luke are independent of one another, and therefore, there is multiple
attestation.

Paul’s martyrdom is mentioned by several of the early church
fathers. Tertullian, who wrote just before A.D 200, reports the martyred deaths
of Peter and Paul. Clement of Rome
also reports the martyred deaths of Peter and Paul. Polycarp mentions Paul’s
martyrdom. Origen also mentions the martyrdom of Paul, and so does Dionysis of
Corthinth. In all, we have 7 independent sources that attest to the suffering
and martyrdom of Paul. Therefore, Paul’s suffering and martyrdom is multiply
attested, and therefore, very, very likely to be a historical fact.

Now, given that we’ve established that Paul was a persecutor
based on the historian’s principle of embarrassment and the principle of
multiple attestation, and we’ve established based on multiple attestation that
Paul converted to Christianity and suffered and died because of it, how do we
account for his? How do we account for Paul’s radical, sudden change from
Christian Destroyer to Christian Leader? From someone who caused martyrs deaths
to someone who died a martyr’s death himself? I can think of no other
explanation than the one Paul himself gave, “Then he appeared to me also, as
to one untimely born.” (1 Corinthians 15:8)

The Conversion Of The
Skeptic James

The Gospels tell us that Jesus had several siblings. Jesus’
siblings included James, Jude, Simon, plus some sisters whose names are never
given. James and his other brothers, we are told, were not believers during
Jesus’ lifetime.

How do we know this? How can the historical “tests of
authenticity” or “historical principles” help us out here? We know that Jesus’
brother James was a skeptic based on the principle of embarrassment. It was
embarrassing for a rabbi’s family to not accept him back in those days. It was
embarrassing for a rabbi’s family to be opposed to him in some way or another
back in those days. So this isn’t very flattering for Jesus. But it gets worse!
Jesus’ family thinks he’s crazy! In fact, in one instance, they come to cease
him and take him home! This doesn’t paint Jesus or His family in a very good
light, given the stigmatism back then. Therefore, it’s highly unlikely that the
gospel writers would have invented skepticism on the part of Jesus’ brother
James.

In fact, we have one fairly vicious story where the brothers
of Jesus try to goad Him into a death trap by showing himself publicly at a
feast when they knew that the Jewish leaders were trying to persecute and kill
him (this is in John 7).

Moreover, we can affirm that James was a skeptic on the
basis of multiple attestation. For not only does Mark mention it (chapter 3),
but John mentions it as well (chapter 7). Mark and John are independent sources
and therefore, James’ skepticism is multiply attested. So, we’ve established
that James was a skeptic.

Yet we know also that later in the
early church James; the brother of Jesus emerges as one of the pillars of the
New Testament church and one of the leaders of the church. This is mentioned in
both the book of Acts as well as by Paul in his letter to the Galatians. Again,
Paul and Luke are independently reporting about this. Thus, We know James
became a leader in the early church based on the principle of multiple
attestation.

In spite of Jame’s skepticism, we
have the testimony of Flavius Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement Of Alexandria
that James was martyred for his belief in his brother as the risen Christ. Now,
how is this to be explained? 1 Corinthians 15 tells us that Jesus appeared to
him or at least that James had some kind of experience that made James think that
Jesus appeared to him. I think this is the best explanation for why James would
be skeptical of his brother initially and then became a follower soon after his
death.

Reginald H. Fuller who was a
fairly liberal New Testament critic says “Even if there were not an
appearance to James mentioned by Paul, we should have to invent one to explain
the transformation that occurred in James between the time of his unbelieving
days when Jesus was alive and his time of leadership in the early church”

Most of us have brothers. What
would it take to make you believe that your brother is The Lord such that you
would be willing to go to your death for this belief as James did when he was
martyred by the Jewish Sanhedrin for his belief that Jesus was in fact the
risen Lord? James’ martyrdom is multiply attested by Flavius Josephus,
Hegesippus, and Clement Of Alexandria.

What Can We Draw From
This?

In summary, we have 5 facts surrounding the crucifixion of
Jesus.

In his book “Justifying Historical Descriptions”, CB
McCullagh lists six steps which historians use for giving historical facts.
They are explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, not being ad
hoc/contrived, being in accord of accepted beliefs, and outstripping its’ rival
theories. The hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead passes all of
these tests.

Explanatory Scope: It explains why the tomb was
empty, why hundreds of people had experiences of seeing Jesus alive after His
death, and it also explains the conversion of the church persecutor Saul Of Tarsus (i.e Paul). It also explains the
conversion of the skeptic James.

Explanatory Power: It explains why the body of Jesus
was gone, why people repeatedly saw Jesus alive, despite his earlier death on a
Roman cross.

Plausibility: Given the historical context of Jesus’
life and claims, the resurrection is a confirmation of those claims.

Ad Hoc: For a theory to be ad hoc means that it
requires the creation of several other theories to save itself from being
falsified. Someone who is caught in a lie and then fabricates new lies to
preserve the original lie is acting in an ad hoc manner. But the resurrection
hypothesis is not that kind of explanation. It only requires the following statement
to be true: it is possible that God exists. In fact, I think the resurrection
hypothesis is evidence for God’s existence in itself.

In accord with accepted beliefs: I can hear the voice
of the skeptic now screaming “People who die stay dead, stupid! Science has
proven that dead people don’t come back to life!” But this is not a valid
objection. The hypothesis isn’t that Jesus rose from the dead by natural
causes, but that God raised Jesus from the dead via a miracle. This in no way
conflicts with the accepted belief that people cannot and do not rise from the
dead, naturally.

Outstripping Rival Theories: Through history, various
rival hypothesis have arisen, for example, The Stolen Body Theory, The Swoon
Theory, The Hallucination Theory, etc. etc. etc. Such hypotheses are refuted in this blog post here. All of the so-called
naturalistic theories fail to address all 5 of the above historical facts. Only
the resurrection hypothesis succeeds in explanatory power and scope, and should
therefore be preferred.